Implications of Responsible Tourism for Conservation and Development in Southern Africa - Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development - page 342

the greatest returns in conservancies, when compared with community-based
enterprises and trophy hunting, but photographic tourism has greater economic
multipliers. Also, tourism can often be a more commercially viable option than
agriculture in marginal areas, while providing higher wages and employment.
Interestingly, it appears that the private sector is not always motivated by profit:
sometimes the lifestyle of working in a wildlife area, and conserving biodiversity, is
sufficient to engage in this sector. Also of value was identification of a robust
community-based wildlife tourism enterprise in Zimbabwe that had thrived
without the support of intermediaries, and despite the context of an unstable
political framework. The review provides a comparison of different benefits
emanating to local people from wildlife tourism through employment and house-
hold benefits. The paper also highlights the difficulty of making comparisons of
the effectiveness of different tourism intervention strategies in generating benefits
for the poor and biodiversity conservation. The different systems of monitoring,
evaluation and reporting demonstrated in the literature are also underpinned by
different policy, ecosystem and program contexts, demonstrating the complexity
of synthesizing lessons to transfer elsewhere. Sometimes it can be more valuable
to maintain the rich detail of case study reports, but the application of consistent
monitoring and reporting frameworks will make future analyses of the impacts of
wildlife tourism more effective.This may guide agencies in establishing what form
of tourism is most appropriate in an area, and whether to plan joint ventures,
private sector or community-based enterprises.
Transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) straddle the borders of two or
more countries, and Helen Suich's analysis of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA)
TFCA illustrates how they can deliver livelihood benefits to people living and
working in the wildlife tourism industry. KAZA incorporates parts of Angola,
Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and in her survey of 128 accommo-
dation enterprises and tour operators, Suich establishes a solid understanding of
local socioeconomic benefits of responsible nature-based tourism. She finds that
although the level of local employment in tourism was already approximately 94
per cent in the region, few local people were reaching management positions, and
that greater skills development is required. Half of the enterprises are locally
owned, but financial returns to investors were low, and efforts to improve the
profitability were required - options may include joint ventures with experienced
private sector partners. Suich identifies a need for more effective and coherent
tourism policies, with less bureaucratic processes. The chapter does not comment
on whether the TFCA has a cumulative or synergistic impact on responsible
tourism development, and on whether local people's livelihoods, and conservation
areas would have been different without KAZA. The level to which the TFCA is
promoted and branded, to encourage more business in this ecologically sensitive
area, will be fundamental to its outcomes. TFCAs are the subject of substantial
interest among NGOs and conservation agencies and academics for their biodi-
versity conservation and local economic development potential (e.g. Sandwith et
al, 2001; Spenceley, 2006; Ali, 2007; Bushell and Eagles, 2007, Ramutsindela,
2007). For example the World Wide Fund for Nature suggests that TFCAs have